Saturday, March 02, 2013

... when Trout was assigned a salary of $510,000 on Saturday, a mere $20,000 above the major league minimum, after winning American League rookie of the year honors and finishing second in voting for most valuable player last season, Craig Landis was stunned.

“During the process, on behalf of Mike, I asked only that the Angels compensate Mike fairly for his historic 2012 season, given his service time,” Landis, who represents Trout, said in an email. “In my opinion, this contract falls well short of a ‘fair’ contract, and I have voiced this to the Angels throughout the process.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I wonder how many lines of work reward people appropriately for their immediate production. Obviously some do; commission businesses, piecework and its whitecollar equivalents. I daresay that most occupations where people work on salary, or even bill hours worked, reward senior people who have made their bones disproportionately to juniors who are still making theirs. Baseball is probably not all that egregious in that regard. Entertainment industries in particular work that way; Willie Nelson makes a heck of a lot more now to croak out "Whiskey River" a few times a week than he did when he was writing "Crazy" 50+ years ago.

As for Miley, he was “renewed,” which is a player’s way – or his agent’s way, perhaps — of saying that he does not agree with what the club has decided to pay them. Players in their first three seasons have their salaries determined by the team. The team can pay the players whatever it wants so long as it’s above the major league minimum, which is $490,000 this year.

There’s really no difference between a player agreeing to terms or being renewed. It’s just semantics.

I wonder how many lines of work reward people appropriately for their immediate production. Obviously some do; commission businesses, piecework and its whitecollar equivalents. I daresay that most occupations where people work on salary, or even bill hours worked, reward senior people who have made their bones disproportionately to juniors who are still making theirs. Baseball is probably not all that egregious in that regard. Entertainment industries in particular work that way; Willie Nelson makes a heck of a lot more now to croak out "Whiskey River" a few times a week than he did when he was writing "Crazy" 50+ years ago.

I'm trying to figure out if you're a full professor or an adjunct. Either way, I can think of one such line of work, yes.

Entertainment industries in particular work that way; Willie Nelson makes a heck of a lot more now to croak out "Whiskey River" a few times a week than he did when he was writing "Crazy" 50+ years ago.

Television seems to reward for recent/immediate production.
The cast of "Friends" were paid around $20k-$40k/episodes for the first two seasons.
The salaries started to climb, and by the second-last and last season, they were making around $1million/episode (each).

Similar things happened on "Seinfeld" and with "The Simpsons" main voice actors.

Might be even simpler than that. The Angels might be working on a long term deal for Trout right now, and they don't want to make it easier for him to say no. An extra half million "bonus" now might make it incrementally harder to get him signed to a team friendly deal this summer.

Then they miscalculated, b/c Trout and his agent are obviously pissed off.

Maybe, maybe not. When they offer him $40M/6 years starting immediately, maybe he's a bit happier, and without a half million "bonus" to put in the bank, maybe a little less likely to want to gamble on his health over the next 4 years he has to wait for free agency.

The Angels had no other play here. They could have tossed a few hundred grand his way, yes. But the entire reason they can pay Hamilton/Pujols gazillions is because they can pay Trout peanuts. They can't be criticized for much here. On the other hand, it should be noted that the system is set up to basically screw over the Trouts of the world, and, again, this should be kept in mind by the media if/when Trout gains the leverage to make something close to his market value.

Are people seriously arguing that if the Angels tossed another $400K at Trout now, it would amount to a hill of beans in a $200 million decision made by Trout half a decade from now if he reaches free agency?

I can't put myslef in Trout's position, since I was not an uber-great anything at age 20 (or 50), but it seems at least plausible that a $400K "investment" could translate to at least a 1-in-20 chance that Trout stays in Anaheim in 5 years for $1M per year less. Not sure I buy it, but it's plausible. I'd rate is less foolish than benching Strasburg in the playoffs :)

Are people seriously arguing that if the Angels tossed another $400K at Trout now, it would amount to a hill of beans in a $200 million decision made by Trout half a decade from now if he reaches free agency?

Yes. The likelihood of impacting his decision is low, but so is the cost. I suspect that the ROI is there, though it would help to know more about Trout, his agent, and Angels culture is assessing this.

Or it could amount to a tiebreaker if the Angels and another team were close in their bidding when Trout got to free agency. And while the $400,000 will seem like a trivial amount by then, the memory of the gratuitous power play might cause him to accept $5M or $10M less from that other team. It wouldn't be the first time that a player had accepted a lower offer for seemingly irrational reasons, and anyway, by that time a $5M-$10M difference is itself going to represent chump change in the grander scheme of things.

Not saying that this scenario is likely, but I do think the Angels were less than smart to play him cheap like this.

#21 Best I can tell what it does is throw away most of an advantage that's tough to quantify.

One of the things a team gets is exclusive negotiating rights before a player hits free agency. I haven't studied this in any great detail but I can think of a number of free agents to be who signed a long term detail with the team owning their rights before hitting free agency and the ones I'm thinking of (Prado for instance. McGwire with the Cards) look like pretty good deals for the club.

All that to say that I think they've made it more likely that Trout will opt to test free agency down the road.

Please. Trout understands that this is a business, and that he will make his own business decision when the time comes. People are being really silly and naive here.

And if he hates the Angels ownership/management, his "business decision" will be to take the Dodgers, or Yankees, or Red Sox money instead. It's not like he won't have other offers just as large as LAA's.

Why is this so hard to understand? Pissing people off never helps your negotiations with them.

And when you think of guys who played CF in the majors from 19 or 20 or 21 onward, it does seem to have some truth to it. Griffey's legs fell apart. Andruw's knees went bad (partially due to the extra weight he started carrying, but how much due to all those innings in CF too?). Carlos Beltran also starting having significant knee issues in his 30s. Sure, there are some counterexamples, but it definitely looks like teams are starting to view it as a risky position for superstar hitters.

The thing is that those guys played well into their 30's... young all star Cfers have the longest career in baseball(last time I looked into it, at least)

But he did sign a very team-friendly extension with them earlier, giving up many of his free agent years. The Cardinals made out like absolute bandits on Pujols - the Angels would love for Trout to do what Pujols did.

Agreed, factor in that the Cardinals negotiated poorly with Pujols on his next contract(not the amount, but the way they handled it, drove Pujols to seek an outside offer more than he would have if he wasn't upset with the organization)

This is pure nonsense. You have no idea who would win an arbitration hearing without comparing the salaries that were filed.

The player wins every time in arbitration, whether they actually win the case or not. The team has to offer up a competitive offer just to have a chance of winning the case, and a competitive offer is always going to be a significantly higher pay raise. Arbitration is the players best friend.

Baseball is different from other business. Baseball is extreme in that management doesn't generally make anywhere near what the top performers make. It's a different business model than a lot of other business's and it's not correct to compare them to other business. They have a fairly good system in place that (regardless of why it exists) is a pretty good balance of rewarding players, owners and teams/fans. The salary for first-third year players is good enough to live on, the system is set up so that teams can control their players for a significant period of time, and outside of the Marlins, teams reward the fans by giving them a semi-stable product to attach their loyalty to. I like the baseball revenue system etc. Only major qualms I have is that I wish the minor leagues did have a larger pay rate, and that revenue sharing forced the owners to attempt to deliver a quality product.

And if he hates the Angels ownership/management, his "business decision" will be to take the Dodgers, or Yankees, or Red Sox money instead. It's not like he won't have other offers just as large as LAA's.

If those other teams offer more, he will probably be going there anyway. And if they somehow offer exactly the same, his evaluation of what it is like to play for LAA will contain many more important things than his 2013 contract.

If those other teams offer more, he will probably be going there anyway. And if they somehow offer exactly the same, his evaluation of what it is like to play for LAA will contain many more important things than his 2013 contract.

Please. Trout understands that this is a business, and that he will make his own business decision when the time comes. People are being really silly and naive here.

Yep, pretending your mind-reading abilities allow you to know exactly what another person understands, and thinks is pretty silly.

The player wins every time in arbitration, whether they actually win the case or not. The team has to offer up a competitive offer just to have a chance of winning the case, and a competitive offer is always going to be a significantly higher pay raise. Arbitration is the players best friend.

The team has to make a competitive offer to the player if they want to settle before arbitration as well. The player isn't going to accept a lowball offer.

This. Its so cheap to make him a non-paltry more-agreeable offer. Even if he wanted $5M or more a year, I think you can suck it up and say "We could pay you $500k, but we're going to make it $1M or $1.5M, even though you're still not happy with that." and trust that hindsight will make that look like a good gesture. Even if it pans out to zero value, The Angels will spend $500k or $1M more poorly than they would have on Trout.

Maybe I don't know MLBers, but I think most people are receptive to "We value you. The economic structures in place mean that we can't be competitive and pay you as much as we value you, but we're going to make an appreciable gesture to show that we value you."

The player wins every time in arbitration, whether they actually win the case or not. The team has to offer up a competitive offer just to have a chance of winning the case, and a competitive offer is always going to be a significantly higher pay raise. Arbitration is the players best friend.

Competitive with what? Certainly not a open market salary. Free agency is the players best friend.

Yep, pretending your mind-reading abilities allow you to know exactly what another person understands, and thinks is pretty silly.

If he's offended by this, he's being irrational, so trying to appease someone by predicting the ways in which they will be irrational so that you can respond is a fool's game.

----

This. Its so cheap to make him a non-paltry more-agreeable offer. Even if he wanted $5M or more a year, I think you can suck it up and say "We could pay you $500k, but we're going to make it $1M or $1.5M, even though you're still not happy with that." and trust that hindsight will make that look like a good gesture. Even if it pans out to zero value, The Angels will spend $500k or $1M more poorly than they would have on Trout.

Why stop at $1M, then? Why not pay him $10M, or his actual market value of $30M? Maybe he feels that he deserves the $20-30M he will likely be worth to the team in 2013. What is the argument for stopping at $1M?

According to Ray's "business only" logic, the Angels are going to be screwed anyway, now that the state tax on millionaires is 10.55%.** That would amount to about $21 million on a $200 M contract, and if Trout is making a decision based strictly on "business", the Angels are already going to have to make a substantial overbid to beat out pretty much every out-of-state team other than the Yankees and the Mets.

**Yay, California

EDIT:

Angels required overbid vs. selected other teams in order for Trout's after-tax cut to be equal:

Maybe I don't know MLBers, but I think most people are receptive to "We value you. The economic structures in place mean that we can't be competitive and pay you as much as we value you, but we're going to make an appreciable gesture to show that we value you."

Why do we expect these sorts of gestures from teams, but not from players?

Why do we expect these sorts of gestures from teams, but not from players?

Mike Trout shows he values the Angels by being an MVP candidate in his rookie season. Honestly, I think the employee's contribution to that is work ethic and performance. If you don't care about your employer, you're going to perform at a lower level.

There is absolutely no expectation that the Angels or any team would go that high. The idea is to strike a balance between (a) the fact that Trout is worth $30 M, (b) the fact that the Angels are not obligated to pay him more than 500k, and (c) the probability that Trout only expects to earn something like 600k, and might be delighted by 800k.

Why not pay him $10M, or his actual market value of $30M? Maybe he feels that he deserves the $20-30M he will likely be worth to the team in 2013. What is the argument for stopping at $1M?

Smilley answered that point already, even if you chose to ignore it. There's no precedent for paying anywhere near full market value to a second year player, but there's plenty of precedent for not paying a superstar second year player $500,000.

Not at all (and I say this as someone who would be unlikely to have been offended here were I a super-stud player, yet retained much of my current personality) - it could be argued that the Angels are signaling to him what they think of him.

As to the amount, I think the Angels would have been wise to have renewed him (presuming they couldn't work mutually beneficial terms) that were in the neighborhood, a but above, of what other star rookies (and Trout, by all accounts, was the star of these stars) might get as sophomores, in keeping with MLB culture. Say, 750K instead of 490K. (use post 82 as a guide, Ray - I went with treating him like a better Ryan Braun)

Ken Griffey Jr. wouldn't entertain an offer from the Yankees franchise because Billy Martin yelled at him (and his dad) in the early 1980s. And 13-year-old Griffey hadn't put up a 170 OPS+.

And IIRC Cliff Lee's wife put the kibosh on the Yanks because a few fans harassed her during the 2009 World Series.

As I said, it's a fool's game to try to predict irrational behavior and control for it.

But when you might be able to ward it off for chump change, you're not being smart by brushing the possibility aside. This has nothing to do with any moral obligation to pay, but simply a cautionary decision to pay a tiny bit more now in order not to have "irrational" memories like Griffey's or Lee's come back to bite you.

Why do we expect these sorts of gestures from teams, but not from players?

Mike Trout shows he values the Angels by being an MVP candidate in his rookie season. Honestly, I think the employee's contribution to that is work ethic and performance. If you don't care about your employer, you're going to perform at a lower level.

But we are specifically talking about teams going beyond contractual obligations as an "appreciable gesture." Why can't players be expected to do the same? Gil Meche's early retirement is the only one that springs to mind.

Why can't players be expected to do the same? Gil Meche's early retirement is the only one that springs to mind.

But you have no idea. Players signing autographs, doing extra media sessions, helping out with rookies in camp, doing charity appearances ... there are dozens of ways that players can go beyond contractual obligations.

Bringing up Meche is nonsense - employees do not give good organizations Christmas bonuses by refusing a paycheck - they never are and never should be expected to "go beyond" by refusing money.

But we are specifically talking about teams going beyond contractual obligations as an "appreciable gesture."

What are a player's contractual obligations? To show up and try a little bit? Not obviously dog it? Not be a complete lard-ass if they're a position player? I think you're setting the bar higher for the player than I am for the owners here.

As I said, it's a fool's game to try to predict irrational behavior and control for it.

It's not irrational to want to distance oneself from people who have irritated you in the past. Cliff Lee can get a ton of money going anywhere he wants. His lifestyle won't be altered one bit by refusing the Yankees, and he won't have to associate with the fans who once made his wife miserable. There's nothing irrational about that kind of behavior.

EDIT to add: To me, it's not about winning points with Trout, it's about not losing points. Sure, an extra 100K or 200K won't do much up against his first FA contract, but it's worth it not to accumulate any strikes against him in his mind. That's worth the money.

Ray's silly posts have pretty much convinced me here that the Angels were not just foolish but possibly irrational as well in not throwing at least a few hundred thousand more towards Trout.

If he is pissed off, if he is insulted, then it's going to be harder for the Angels to extend Trout and get a "hometown discount," then it was few days ago.

Maybe that was never in the cards, maybe Trout was always splitting the second he was FA eligible, but maybe not.

Ray's claim that Trout is not going to be upset or that he would be irrational if he were upset or offended by the Angels behavior considering how other elite rookies are treated is itself a wholly irrational claim- irrational in the sense that Ray seemingly has no idea how real-people rationalize things

But when you might be able to ward it off for chump change, you're not being smart by brushing the possibility aside. This has nothing to do with any moral obligation to pay, but simply a cautionary decision to pay a tiny bit more now in order not to have "irrational" memories like Griffey's or Lee's come back to bite you.

True enough. Of course, we're all suffering from a lack of information about Mike Trout and what makes him tick. The decision on whether to pay more or not could hinge on any number of factors that we don't know anything about. Is Trout a ruthless mercenary? Is he a guy who puts a huge premium on loyalty? Is he sentimental? Does he take offense easily and hold grudges? Is he easygoing and accomodating or tightly wound and prickly? Where does he fall on the embracing/fearing change spectrum?

My gut tells me a few extra $100k is a small price to pay to avoid giving your young superstar a grudge to nurse, but presumably the Angels know Mike Trout a lot better than I do.

If he is pissed off, if he is insulted, then it's going to be harder for the Angels to extend Trout and get a "hometown discount," then it was few days ago.

Maybe that was never in the cards, maybe Trout was always splitting the second he was FA eligible, but maybe not.

I wonder if the complaining is just to have an appropriate Chekov's gun to fire later on when the Angels is desperate to extend him. Or just to something to use for foreshadowing in "Deep Trout - the Movie".

#132 First thing to note about all of this is that "respect" is huge in the world of athletics. It may not seem rational to you, but in this area athletes are predictably irrational. (It's the reason for instance that Bill Russel insisted on Wilt + $1. He didn't care about the amount). Renewing for the minimum is absolutely going to be parsed as an insult (it's the reason very few teams will renew a young star for the minimum even though they have the absolute right to)

There is a number out there and I don't pretend to know what it is. But there's no goodwill to be gained from exceeding it. If I were working for the Angels I'd look for the "standard" raise for guys who were legitimate stars in their first year and add $1 to it. (see the Bill Russel example for the logic)

Why not pay him $10M, or his actual market value of $30M? Maybe he feels that he deserves the $20-30M he will likely be worth to the team in 2013. What is the argument for stopping at $1M?

Smilley answered that point already, even if you chose to ignore it. There's no precedent for paying anywhere near full market value to a second year player, but there's plenty of precedent for not paying a superstar second year player $500,000.

If precedent is your answer, then there's plenty of precedent for paying a second year player -- even a good one -- barely the major league minimum. Teams do it all the time. There have been a few mild exceptions -- you have to go back 10 and 15 years to find some of them, to include Jeter and Pujols -- but so what? The precendent is to pay the player the minimum or barely above.

So precedent can't be your answer. There's _more_ precedent for what the Angels did.

If precedent isn't the answer, then there's nothing to argue for $1M over $10M or $20M. Trout says "Hey, this is insulting to me, I am worth far more than 1M to you." And your response is, "Well, no second year player has gotten that; suck it up." I don't really see why your position is much better than mine.

Another thing- sure there are some players who will ALWAYS take the highest offer, always, but there are many who don't- many who know they can live on 15M a year as well as 16.5M a year- so who do they sign with?

They sign with who they are most comfortable with, they sign to be closer to where they grew up, they sign where their wife wants to live, they sign where their best friend plays, etc. etc. and contrary to what Ray Ray thinks NONE of this is irrational.

There is no upside and a lot of potential downside to the Angels renewing Trout the way they did.

No one other than Trout should have a problem with this decision. The Angels might have paid him more -- there's some precedent for teams with standout rookies paying those players more in the second year -- but there's no connection between Trout's 2013 salary and any decisions he might make five years down the road. An extra $300,000 now isn't going to influence a $30 million choice in the future, and thinking it will is one of the sillier myths in sports. There is no loyalty. Say it again: there is no loyalty. The Angels made the same business decision that Trout will have to make down the road, and that's the only relationship between the two.

Angels required overbid vs. selected other teams in order for Trout's after-tax cut to be equal:

Players pay tax in all the places they play, so he would pay that tax only on home and A's games.

True, though when you add the Oakland / SF / LAD / SD and Toronto (where the provincial tax is 10%) games you're still talking about a minimum of 95 games on the Angels' schedule where the state bite would be 10% or more. That's still quite a few million dollars in some cases, and in all cases it's a hell of a lot more than a few hundred thousand.

So precedent can't be your answer. There's _more_ precedent for what the Angels did.

going through best 1st/2nd year players by WAR last 20 years:

Piazza was renewed at 600K (minimum was under 200K)
Longoria signed a multi -year extension including $550K in his Soph year (150K above minimum)
Tulo made 750K his second fill year (min was 390K)
Nomah made 1.075M his second full year
Sizemore made 500K his second full year (min was 327.5k)
Heyward made 496.5k (min was 414)
Pujols was discussed
Blalock made 550K (min was 300)

so I'm sure this will surprise no one, but not on;y is Ray's reasoning wrong, but his factual premise is wrong as well

You have no more basis for that statement than there is for the statement that this isn't going to matter.

this is known as the "I'm entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to yours" argument.

But I'll play- where is the upside for the Angels? The upside is that it won't matter and they save Artie Moreno some ash tray money in the process? The downside is that this starts the poisoning of the relationship between Trout and the Angels- sure this not mattering is more likely to be the eventual result- but even if the downside is less likely it would be so much worse in magnitude.

The problem with arguing with you is I have no idea if you are just being contrary, or if you really do believe in the idea that everyone is or should be a "rational" actor running a financial cost-benefit analysis on every effing decision.

/edit - And it doesn't address the idea of decisions he might make over a shorter time span - like whether to accept a deal to buy out his arb years.

As I said, anyone who would hold a grudge over this, such that it will affect his decision to sign a multi-million-dollar deal to buy out some of his arbitration or FA years in exchange for the certainty that he will earn at least some huge amount of money as a hedge against him getting hurt or sucky is not being rational.

Your sample size of first year players was 8, one of which (Longoria) was irrelevant.

find ONE elite rookie (at least 4 WAR) who was renewed for 20K above league minimum or less, just one- and I'd have you beat 7:1 even throwing out Longoria.

But, go ahead, find one.

Josh Hamilton whoo hooo, made just 16.8K above minimum
Boujos made 20K above minimum his second full year after having a 4.8 WAR sophomore campaign
Austin Jackson made 26K above min hsi sophomore year
Hanely Ramirez made 22K above

basically you have to hit 5.0 WAR and under to find players treated similarly to Trout

Your sample size of first year players over the last two decades was 8, one of which (Longoria) was irrelevant.

The sample of first-year players who were very, very good isn't a very large one. How the Astros handled Wandy Rodriguez coming off his 77 ERA+ rookie campaign isn't really releveant to what the Angels should do with best-player-in-the-league Trout.

But I'll play- where is the upside for the Angels? The upside is that it won't matter and they save Artie Moreno some ash tray money in the process? The downside is that this starts the poisoning of the relationship between Trout and the Angels- sure this not mattering is more likely to be the eventual result- but even if the downside is less likely it would be so much worse in magnitude.

Or to put it in another thread's terms, it's like playing Russian roulette with one bullet in a gun that can fire anywhere from 6 to 20 rounds. It's "rational" only on the craziest level.

and the Dodgers gave Russell Martin 110K above minimum after his 5.4 WAR sophomore year-
so yes, hindsight being 20/20 the Dodgers should have renewed him at minimum

Why? 100k is a disposable sum in this industry, especially to the Dodgers. If they did that for every rookie who had a 4 WAR season and it only helped sway one of those who panned out to resign it's completely worth it. And if it doesn't sway any it's no big loss.

Focusing on how the money affects Trout's likelihood to resign misses the point. Five years down the road, Trout may or may not take the best offer available. He may or may not sign a long term deal if he feels comfortable enough in Anaheim. But he's definitely one of the most important and influential players in Anaheim already.

Contractual obligations aside, what I haven't seen in this thread is a compelling case for pissing off a superstar over a small amount of money. What does it gain you? Are you taking the perspective that you will never be in a position to ask Trout for a favor, or to ask him to put in more work than he is contractually obligated to do? That Trout being unhappy has no possibility of causing unrest in the locker room?

Why? 100k is a disposable sum in this industry, especially to the Dodgers.

I was being sarcastic- the Dodgers made the right move with Russell Martin because he went bust and was a fungible commodity after are promising beginning - at the time I think they were being pennywise/pound foolish.

and I was wrong about Hamilton- he was renewed at min + 16k after his 2.4 WAR rookie year, the Rangers then renewed him at minimum +150K after his 5.2 WAR soph year

It was Bourjos who was renewed at min +20K after his 4.8 Soph year-
So last 20 years, ranked by WAR-
you have 18 players with 4.8 WAR+ in there 1st and second years

only 2 were renewed for 20K above minimum or less

Trout and Bourjos

Trout will be making less than Tim Salmon did in his Sophomore Year in 1994 (600K) (4.9 WAR as a rookie)

There really is no precedent for how the Angels just renewed Trout unless you go down to Bourjos essentially getting renewed at minimum after a 438 WAR season.

Contractual obligations aside, what I haven't seen in this thread is a compelling case for pissing off a superstar over a small amount of money.

what you don't find Ray's argument that Trout would be irrational to let this affect his thinking about any future offer the Angels make, and if he's that irrational you don't want him anyway to be a compelling argument?

I mean seriously, if Trout is upset at the Angels he's obviously Elijah Dukes part 2.

what you don't find Ray's argument that Trout would be irrational to let this affect his thinking about any future offer the Angels make, and if he's that irrational you don't want him anyway to be a compelling argument?

So let's say next year the Angels offer Trout a Longoria-type 10 year contract, a contract which Trout agrees is absolutely in his best interests to sign but he's still pissed about the $510K. The idea that Trout would tell them no because of the $510K is so naive and silly I don't know what to make of it.

Or after his free agent year Trout is offered a competitive contract by the Angels. He and his family are happy in LA; he likes the team, the city, the schools. And yet he says "Never! The $510K! The $510K!"

Or the flip side: The Angels give him $810K this year. Five years later, a number of teams make competitive FA offers to Trout, including the Angels. The Dodgers come in $30 million higher and he'd like to sign with them, is okay with leaving the Angels. But he says to himself, "You know, the $810K. I'm going to leave the $30M on the table and go back to the Angels even though I'm fine with leaving."

Contractual obligations aside, what I haven't seen in this thread is a compelling case for pissing off a superstar over a small amount of money. What does it gain you?

This is the heart of the discussion to me. It might be irrational of Trout to be pissed off, but irrational or not, the Angels have to deal with him. One of the perogatives of superstardom is behaving like a prima donna, and if you can take reasonable steps to minimize the chances of your superstar leaving down the road for equivalent or even less money than you're offering, you should. That said, the Angels are in a better position to know whether their actions really pissed Trout off than we are.

There are more options. What if next year, the Angels offer Trout a 6-year extension, with the last two years at free agent market value. He doesn't want to play their past what he has to, so he declines to sign anything longer than a 4-year contract.

Contractual obligations aside, what I haven't seen in this thread is a compelling case for pissing off a superstar over a small amount of money. What does it gain you?

Someone made the argument that this keeps Trout's financial incentive high to sign a longer-term deal in the near future. Give him a million dollars this year, and maybe he's more likely to say, "No thanks to that longer term deal, I'll pocket this million and take my chances year to year." Maybe Trout and his agent were being unreasonably inflexible about longer-term negotiations?

If this wasn't part of any longer-term negotiation or effort on the Angels part, then I agree it's probably not the best move. Although I don't have much sympathy for players whose union negotiated these rules (and especially not the agents who have probably profited on these same rules in that past), I'd still probably give him a more status-quo number for reigning Rookie of the Year.

Or the flip side: The Angels give him $810K this year. Five years later, a number of teams make competitive FA offers to Trout, including the Angels. The Dodgers come in $30 million higher and he'd like to sign with them, is okay with leaving the Angels. But he says to himself, "You know, the $810K. I'm going to leave the $30M on the table and go back to the Angels even though I'm fine with leaving."

Its possible he takes 6/300 with the Angels instead of 7/350 with the Dodgers, sure.

There are more options. What if next year, the Angels offer Trout a 6-year extension, with the last two years at free agent market value. He doesn't want to play their past what he has to, so he declines to sign anything longer than a 4-year contract.

This makes no sense. Why would the Angels pay him more than they'd otherwise have to for those 4 years if he's leaving after 4 years anyway? The reason to buy out some of his arb years is so that you (the team) get a discount on some of the FA years. Otherwise, there's zero incentive to do that.

This makes no sense. Why would the Angels pay him more than they'd otherwise have to for those 4 years if he's leaving after 4 years anyway? The reason to buy out some of his arb years is so that you (the team) get a discount on some of the FA years. Otherwise, there's zero incentive to do that.

I'm not saying they end up signing a 4-year deal. I'm saying they reach an impasse because he won't sign anything longer.

Do we know how much the Angels would have had to offer Trout before he wouldn't have been pissed off?

Based on the agent's comments, somewhat more than what they did.

OTOH, if you're on board with Ray here, didn't the Angels make a mistake by offering him anything above the minimum? If none of this will matter anywhere down the road when Trout finally has some say in his earnings, as Ray insists, then why give him a raise at all?

So let's say next year the Angels offer Trout a Longoria-type 10 year contract, a contract which Trout agrees is absolutely in his best interests to sign but he's still pissed about the $510K. The idea that Trout would tell them no because of the $510K is so naive and silly I don't know what to make of it.

Of course Trout wouldn't turn that sort of an offer down, but then what are the odds that the Angels are likely to offer such a contract?

Or after his free agent year Trout is offered a competitive contract by the Angels. He and his family are happy in LA; he likes the team, the city, the schools. And yet he says "Never! The $510K! The $510K!"

Again, not likely that with all those other factors added, he'd dwell on the $510K.

Or the flip side: The Angels give him $810K this year. Five years later, a number of teams make competitive FA offers to Trout, including the Angels. The Dodgers come in $30 million higher and he'd like to sign with them, is okay with leaving the Angels. But he says to himself, "You know, the $810K. I'm going to leave the $30M on the table and go back to the Angels even though I'm fine with leaving."

And in a case like that, it's also unlikely that the $510K would override everything else.

So now you've loaded a gun and taken all but one bullet out of the chamber. The odds are all in your favor, and your accountants are giving themselves bonuses.

But then what if the Angels don't offer a Longoria deal? What if for whatever reason Trout's not thrilled with the LA lifestyle or the 10.5% California millionaire's tax, and he'll demand a substantial bonus to stay there? What if the Dodgers are so far over their luxury tax limit by that point that they're not in the position to make a competitive offer?

IOW what if those benign scenarios you're depicting don't play out? Then where are you, and what in the hell have you gained by hoarding that chump change today? Not a damn thing other than a reputation for penny ante nittiness that you easily could have avoided.